EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 960
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23259 Posts
| ||
|
Tula
Austria1544 Posts
| ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21727 Posts
On March 29 2014 06:05 GreenHorizons wrote: Christie's I don't remember defense sounds familiar... Everyone ever heard by an investigation suffers from spontaneous amnesia. Its what makes those hearings so utterly pointless. | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
The newly public report clearing New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) in the George Washington Bridget lane closing scandal contains "venomous, gratuitous, and inappropriate sexist remarks," according to a lawyer representing former Christie deputy chief of staff Bridget Kelly. Kelly's attorney, Michael Critchley, issued a statement Friday responding to a report released Thursday by a legal team representing Christie's office. The report pinned the blame for the lane closures on Kelly and former Port Authority of New York and New Jersey executive David Wildstein who, according to the report, "knowingly participated" in the plan "at least in part, for some ulterior motive to target [Fort Lee, N.J. Mayor Mark Sokolich.]" The legal team that conducted the investigation did not interview Kelly, Wildstein, and several other key figures in the scandal -- a fact that Critchley noted in his statement "Without reviewing all pertinent evidence, any conclusions that are to be drawn are by definition incomplete," Critchley said. Critchley then alluded to the report's various mentions of Kelly's emotional state, and her brief relationship with Christie's former campaign manager, Bill Stepien: "The report's venomous, gratuitous, and inappropriate sexist remarks concerning Ms. Kelly have no place in what is alleged to be a professional and independent report." Source | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On March 29 2014 03:31 Wolfstan wrote: My buddy working 60-80 hours a week is definitely working out for him. If you can get away with it, working 20 hours a week is fine too. Government shouldn't dictate minimums or maximums, leave that to the business and employees. It would be one thing if people were actually given a choice: work some "minimum" and live in some baseline of comfort, or work as much as you want and earn a noticeable amount more (but not egregiously). Sadly, that isn't the case. All the jobs that pay enough to live at that baseline of comfort at even 25 hours a week require 40+ hours a week. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On March 29 2014 05:52 TheFish7 wrote: Sheesh I hit 35 hours by Wednesday most weeks You sound so proud. You must be your employer's most prized workhorse. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On March 29 2014 08:55 IgnE wrote: You sound so proud. You must be your employer's most prized workhorse. You know some people enjoy their work to the point that they'll gladly replace free time to work more... | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
TheFish7
United States2824 Posts
On March 29 2014 08:55 IgnE wrote: You sound so proud. You must be your employer's most prized workhorse. It beats the alternatives. | ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
On March 29 2014 08:55 IgnE wrote: You sound so proud. You must be your employer's most prized workhorse. I remember i used to do this at my old job, not quite that many but more than anyone else. Nothing wrong with working more since that means you get paid more. Don't be so butthurt bro. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
The president’s account downplayed the Catholic Church’s concerns about religious freedom in the United States and Obamacare’s mandate to pay for contraception. sourceThe pontiff and the president were cordial in the televised portions of their meeting, but a subtle competition to set the agenda played out after the meeting, which went well beyond its scheduled half-hour. “We actually didn’t talk a whole lot about social schisms in my conversations with His Holiness,” Mr. Obama said at a press conference in Rome. “In fact, that really was not a topic of conversation.” Mr. Obama deflected a reporter’s question about the extent of his discussion with the pope on the contraceptive mandate by saying that Francis “actually did not touch in detail” on the subject. The administration has been locked in a lengthy legal and political battle with the U.S. Catholic Church hierarchy over Obamacare and issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. The Vatican, however, issued a statement after the meeting saying the president’s discussions with Francis and two other top Vatican officials focused “on questions of particular relevance for the [Catholic] Church in [the United States], such as the exercise of the rights to religious freedom, life and conscientious objection” — issues that have fueled divisions between Mr. Obama and the church. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
| ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
Pope Francis doesn't seem like the kind of Pope that would be a super hardass over over contraception mandates in Obamacare. Certainly, the Church has an interest overall on that front, so any chance they have they will portray the Pope as a strong arm for their "agenda." | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23259 Posts
Sorry if I don't take people who participated in the one of the largest and notorious pedophile conspiracies and insist to this day on covering it up rather than bringing the criminals to justice, seriously when they talk about protecting children. There is no way we would catch an org in one of the largest pedophile ring conspiracies in the US and tell them to just quit their job and pay up and the problem will go away. As for the Pope I can't take people seriously who think that a human being is infallible. It seems people don't have a problem ignoring guidance from the church when making decisions in their own lives but when other people want to stray from scripture then suddenly they get the holy ghost and can't associate with some who commits that particular sin. Next thing businesses wont want to give employees paychecks that could be used for divorce because it violates their belief... I honestly don't see the moral difference between paying money to an employee to buy birth control/abortion or paying a third party...? Pope Francis has made it abundantly clear that he is far more concerned with poor people than he is birth control. But you wont hear conservatives talking about the popes feelings on wealth accumulation will you? Or saying we need to follow the Pope when it comes to how we treat the "least of" men? No you wont because most politicos only pay attention to the Church when it says something that fits their agenda. If Republicans told the Pope their plan for the poor was to torment them so that they were "motivated" to "stop being poor" he would lose his shit. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
| ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On March 30 2014 06:27 GreenHorizons wrote: If Republicans told the Pope their plan for the poor was to torment them so that they were "motivated" to "stop being poor" he would lose his shit. I feel like conservatives in the US picture Jesus like that: | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 29 2014 06:05 GreenHorizons wrote: You might be too young, but it really reminds me of Hillary Clinton's answers to questions during the Whitewater scandal. The loans, the overlapping $100,000 in profit off $1,000 investment (about which she knew nothing), the Hale testimony.. Before congressional investigators, she said "I don't know" or "I don't remember" circa 250 times. It spawned not a few parodies + Show Spoiler +Christie's I don't remember defense sounds familiar... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCgn1XsJq5U | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On March 30 2014 02:06 kwizach wrote: The story's about how radically different the two party's accounts of the meetings ran. It was either nothing about the US's conflicts with the Catholic church on contraception mandates, or it was entirely focused on those religious freedom and conscientious objection. What was really said? Only God knows.Hello Vatican, meet our good friend Separation of Church and State. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
On March 30 2014 10:08 Danglars wrote: The story's about how radically different the two party's accounts of the meetings ran. It was either nothing about the US's conflicts with the Catholic church on contraception mandates, or it was entirely focused on those religious freedom and conscientious objection. What was really said? Only God knows. And Obama and Pope Francis... | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
On March 30 2014 09:39 Nyxisto wrote: I feel like conservatives in the US picture Jesus like that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AK7gI5lMB7M Must be why they volunteer more and give more money to charity than liberals. They want to torment the poor so they'll stop being poor. This tormenting being giving them food and clothing and doing things like gathering the food and clothing of course. I've seen those food and clothing drives my parents' church runs (this church's community is dominated by old Republicans and their old wives), the torture there would make Heydrich sick. I've also seen other religious charities for religious denominations dominated by conservatives paying people's bills and stuff like that because they do things like that, the agony of those being 'helped' was unspeakable. Meanwhile the Al Frankens of the world have had political control over American cities for 50 years and the poor in them today aren't much better off than they were back then. | ||
| ||
